May 28, 2014
|

by Susan Page, USA TODAY

by Susan Page, USA TODAY

In the wake of President Obama's surprise Memorial Day weekend visit to Afghanistan - and just before he announced U.S. troop levels for the next two years - former U.S. ambassador Ronald Neumann discusses the legacy and lessons of America's longest war. Neumann, now president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, was interviewed for USA TODAY's Capital Download. Questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: We're at a pivot point in Afghanistan, with most U.S. troops being withdrawn this year. What situation do we leave behind?

We have an opportunity to build upon a measure of success. The Afghans have just had the first round of their election. Twice as many people voted as in their last election. It seems to have gone off pretty well, and the security was handled entirely by the Afghan armed forces. Despite a lot of Taliban pressure and attacks, 7 million people voted. So we have something to build on both with the security forces and the election. But it's critical that we continue to support the Afghan army ...

It's an active fight for the Afghans. We're not winding down the war; we're just winding down our participation. We're leaving a very nasty war behind. And we ought to continue to help.

Q: You have a rare perspective. Your father was also a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, for LBJ.

I first went to Afghanistan in 1967, just after graduate school before going into the Army. Traveled all over the country by horse, jeep, yak and plane, sometimes. ... It was a hospitable country. It was a country at peace. It was a very poor country, very primitive. My wife and I drove all the way through the center of Afghanistan. Took five days, 36 passes, and seven river fords, and no pavement anywhere. People were welcoming. You could travel freely. And it was just on the cusp of development. Of course, all the years of war destroyed that. ...

Q: When you were ambassador, would you have foreseen the situation today?

The last major cable I did (in 2007), I said we're not losing now but we could be losing in a year and we have no margin for surprise. We're not doing what we need to do ... by the end of 2008, we were losing. Cities were just about to fall. Now the Obama administration has done some really important things in troops and money; it snatched back from a defeat. It now needs not to waste that. ...

Q: When he was in Afghanistan this weekend, Obama didn't meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Was that a mistake?

Yes. When you're flying to somebody else's country and you go to your own military base and then you say, 'come to my base' - particularly for an Afghan. This would have made Karzai look like a total foreign puppet, being summoned to the foreign leader at the foreign leader's base. That was impossible to carry out. What I have no idea of is whether the administration simply understood that it was impossible but didn't care, or whether they understood Afghanistan so little they didn't understand how insulting their behavior was. Both are possible. ...

What's the point of insulting Karzai now? ... What it suggests is going for an essentially domestic purpose of seeing our troops ... and paying no attention to the foreign policy consequences. And that I don't understand.

Q: What's the impact of this war on Americans?

It's been harmful. I think it's the combination of Afghanistan and Iraq and the length of time. ... I don't think we signed up people for a war as long as this or for goals as broad as this required. I think the damage is to confidence in our own ability to lead in the world. On the other hand, you're beginning to see some push back against that as well, that the world is not a happy place when we don't lead. ...

This clearly has left people tired and discontented. I think there's still a margin for presidential leadership if the president wishes to lead. ... When you're going to fight wars, presidential leadership is important.

Q: Have you seen that leadership from Obama?

No. President Obama has made some important correct decisions about troops and about money. And he has periodically explained his decisions. But then he has not led with the process. He has not led with the Congress. He has not continued to speak publicly about the issue. So it doesn't have a lot of presidential leadership.